Kerry: Uranium Enrichment Won’t Be Resolved in Iran Deal

Secretary of State John Kerry has confirmed that the upcoming interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program will not include any clause on the right to enrichment of uranium for civilian purposes. Rather, that will be left to a future, final deal.

That’s in keeping with what Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said earlier this week. He insisted there was no need to include any specific mention of civilian enrichment because it is “self-evident” from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Kerry isn’t taking that position exactly, however, and rather he argues that whether or not Iran has any rights at all will be left up to “future negotiations.”

Keeping the question open may be an effort to placate hawks who insist Iran doesn’t have any such rights about the interim deal, but with that pact designed to last only six months punting a controversial issue may make the final pact, supposedly the goal of all the talks, much harder to reach in a timely fashion.

Author: Jason Ditz

S'pose it occurs to everyone this is the same arrogation as the idea of forbidden-objects/'contraband:' they can have it but you can't; or you're conditionally bestowed with a privilege, by them, if you can. It's possession or transfer is either left open to monopoly by the well-connected or commands a tribute ('tax'). Somehow our great grandparents missed the chance not to negotiate away their clear right to alcohol, certain plants, etc. I'd hate to see Iran do the same… Indeed, next up, hopefully on Iran's example, states should demand explicit statements renouncing USG 'authority' to 'regulate' or 'enforce' against trade or possession of, say, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms… …for starters.

persnipoles

S'pose it occurs to everyone this is the same arrogation as the idea of forbidden-objects/'contraband:' they can have it but you can't; or you're conditionally bestowed with a privilege, by them, if you can. It's possession or transfer is either left open to monopoly by the well-connected or commands a tribute ('tax'). Somehow our great grandparents missed the chance not to negotiate away their clear right to alcohol, certain plants, etc. I'd hate to see Iran do the same… Indeed, next up, hopefully on Iran's example, states should demand explicit statements renouncing USG 'authority' to 'regulate' or 'enforce' against trade or possession of, say, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms… …for starters.

persnipoles

S'pose it occurs to everyone this is the same arrogation as the idea of forbidden-objects/'contraband:' they can have it but you can't; or you're conditionally bestowed with a privilege, by them, if you can. It's possession or transfer is either left open to monopoly by the well-connected or commands a tribute ('tax'). Somehow our great grandparents missed the chance not to negotiate away their clear right to alcohol, certain plants, etc. I'd hate to see Iran do the same… Indeed, next up, hopefully on Iran's example, states should demand explicit statements renouncing USG 'authority' to 'regulate' or 'enforce' against trade or possession of, say, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms… …for starters.